Over a decade of Industrial Scale Cheating - SFA fine £250k, Tom Boyd's remarks, SFA fine £100k

gs ...
Res 12 ....unabridged. The Second part.( Second page)

3 June 2011. Craig Whyte issues a circular on behalf of “The Rangers Football Club Group Limited” (formerly called Wavetower Limited) to RFC shareholders, providing them with information on the takeover and future commitments. One of those commitments is specified as

“The Rangers FC Group is to contribute to the Club the amount required to meet a liability owed by the Club to HM Revenue & Customs in relation to a discounted option scheme tax;”

Source: Circular issued by Craig Whyte, dated 3 June 2011, in Part III (e) of Circular To Shareholders



6 June 2011. MCR writes to HMRC, providing them with some background financial information and cashflow forecasts. A proposal to make an interim payment of £200,000, on account, in respect of the tax liability is included, along with an intention of making a formal proposal regarding payment of the balance by 17 June 2011.

Source: Letter from MCR to HMRC dated 6 June 2011 at paras 4.5 to 4.7



14 June 2011. Ken Olverman, Financial Controller at RFC, emails Craig Whyte confirming “I now have access to the UEFA Licensing Template which is a self certification process that we have no overdue Football Payables at the end of June.” It’s notable that he mentions “football payables” but not “social tax payables, but also that the submission is a self certification process.

Source: Email from Olverman to Whyte dated 14 June 2011



NB: The above demonstrates that “good faith” is required on the part of the licensee, that their submission is accurate and truthful. See entry at 30 June 2011 below.



15 June 2011. Ken Olverman, Financial Controller at RFC presents the latest Management Accounts to the RFC Board. There are several references to the DOS liability, including the meeting with MCR and HMRC on 11 May, an indication that the £2.8m liability would not be paid before the financial year end (30 June), that any payment on account might reduce the penalty loading applied by HMRC, and that MCR’s desire was to wrap the DOS Liability in with any liability arising from the Remuneration Trust tribunal (big tax case).

Source: RFC Management Accounts dated 15 June 2011 , Executive Summary at p2 and Other Matters (Tax) at p10 .





20 June 2011. HMRC referred the case and assessments issued on 20 May 2011 to their “Collector of Taxes” team, in the absence of any appeal or payment, following the expiry of the permitted 30 day period.

Source: Witness statement by an HM Inspector of Taxes, to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated 21 March 2012, at para 34 of Ref4b



 
gs ...
Res 12 ....unabridged. The Third part.(First page)

Persistence Beats Resistance



HOME

CONTACT

CONTENTS



Part 3: 30 June 2011 – 30 September 2011

Previous: Part 2



UEFA monitoring and HMRC lose patience



30 June 2011. This date marks the first of two monitoring points in the UEFA Licencing cycle, where any changes to the status of “overdue payables” or other significant economic factors should be advised to the football authorities. It is unlikely that a previous licence award would be revoked, but such a disclosure would likely prompt further scrutiny, or controls, to be put in place for the future.

RFC’s claims of what they called a “potential” liability at the time of the licence award had, by 30 June 2011, become ”status of postponed (awaiting scheduling of payments)”, according to an internal RFC email.

Source: Internal email from the RFC Financial Controller to Craig Whyte in Ref12



If the liability was described in that way on the submission to UEFA under Art 66, then it had to be a false statement. We know that from several sources, the acceptance of the liability in February/March, the issuance of formal assessments in May, the expiry of the appeal period, MCR’s proposal to make a small payment on account and HMRC’s referral of the case to their “Collector of Taxes” all in June.



While the submission is apparently a “self certification” procedure, the SFA appears not to have investigated further, or sought confirmation from HMRC as to the status of the tax liability. If the SFA deliberately chose not to ask, or was advised not to ask, what might be termed “awkward questions”, then they were at best negligent in terms of their responsibilities to other clubs, or at worst conspired with the club to cover up the true status of the tax liability.



1 July 2011. HMRC wrote to the RFC Company Secretary, advising that, in the absence of any payment, an appropriate “penalty” was being considered and that HMRC would meet with MCR on 14 July 2011 to discuss the issue.

Source: Witness statement by an HM Inspector of Taxes, to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated 21 March 2012, at para 37 of Ref4b.



14 July 2011. HMRC’s “Head of Enforcement & Insolvency, Debt Management and Banking” met with MCR and followed up the meeting with a letter to MCR, with multiple demands for more financial information, both historical and forecast. The demands include payment of the £250,000 transfer fee received from Blackpool for Charlie Adam. HMRC made it clear that they were seeking payment in full , including interest and penalties, during August

Source: Letter from the Head of Enforcement to MCR dated 14 July 2011



21 July 2011. HMRC emails MCR querying transfer spending on signing Lee Wallace while the debt to HMRC remains outstanding.

Source: Email from HMRC to MCR dated 21st July 2011



28 July 2011. HMRC holds a conference call with MCR. An email chain, internal to RFC, follows, with MCR’s summary of the key points from the meeting. Note HMRC recognise the dependence of obtaining full settlement on a favourable result in the Champions League v Malmo on 3 August.

60% penalty to be applied taking total to £4.2m

Late appeal likely to be viewed as vexatious

Penalty can be appealed within 14 days

HMRC’s interest in the outcome of the Champions League qualifier

Summary warrant to be obtained.

Source: Email chain in Ref13.



1 August 2011. HMRC initiate summary warrant proceedings at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

Source: Documents included in the Inventory of Productions contained within Ref11.



3 August 2011. Rangers lose to Malmo FF in their Champions League qualifier, thus denying the club access to a significant revenue stream.



4 August 2011. HMRC holds another conference call with MCR. An email chain, internal to RFC, follows, with MCR’s summary of the key points from the meeting.

Cash shortage from September without European income

No provision for £4.2m liability in cash flow forecast

Advised of summary warrant proceedings underway

PAYE Audit to be undertaken

Source: Email chain in Dated 4 August 2011



10 August 2011. Sherriff Officers call at Ibrox to serve papers and collect payment of an overdue tax liability of £3.02m.

Source: Documents included in the Inventory of Productions contained within Ref11.



10 August 2011. The visit of the Sherriff Officers prompted the RFC directors to look at ways to challenge or stop the effects of the summary warrant.

Source: Two email chains involving Gary Withey, RFC’s Company Secretary, MCR and a third party legal firm. First e mail and Second E mail .



14 August 2011. MCR emails Craig Whyte suggesting an immediate payment of £250,000 to HMRC and to seek a 3 year time to pay arrangement to nullify the effects of the summary warrant.

Source: MCR email to Craig Whyte dated 14 August 2011



16 August 2011. HMRC write to RFC, formally advising that a penalty of £1,299,347 had been levied on the balance due in respect of the tax liability.

Source: Witness statement by an HM Inspector of Taxes, to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated 21 March 2012, at para 38 of Ref4b.



22 August 2011. HMRC meet again with RFC and MCR. Phil Betts, RFC Director, is unable to answer questions on the club’s current position and the failure to address the tax liability. HMRC initiated discussions on the penalty applied and various options that could be taken.



A few days later, in an email to Gary Withey, dated 26 August 2011, Betts referenced a comment made by HMRC at the meeting, that “in his opinion what the previous regime had allowed to happen was tantamount to fraud.

Source: Witness statement by an HM Inspector of Taxes, to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated 21 March 2012, at para 39 of Ref4b. Email from Phil Betts to Gary Withey dated 26 August 2011 Ref 14a.



25 August 2011. Rangers lose to Maribor in their Europa League play off, thus closing the door to any further revenue stream for participation in European competition.


to be continued......
 
gs ...
Res 12 ....unabridged. The Third part.(Second page)



26 August 2011. RFC’s attempts to find a way out of their immediate difficulties continue. Gary Withey writes to HMRC stating that their letter with assessments, dated 20 May 2011, was not seen by RFC, as the Financial Controller, Donald McIntyre, had been suspended around that date. Withey was clearly unaware that MCR had acknowledged receipt of that letter in their own letter to HMRC of dated 6 June 2011.

Source: Email from Gary Withey to HMRC in Ref14



30 August 2011 HMRC’s Head of Enforcement writes to the RFC Company Secretary, stating the arrears position (£3,024,054.52) and that interest was accruing at £163.83 each day. He goes on to comment that “promises to pay so far have not been delivered on” and adds that he had “provided instructions for legal action to commence”

Source: Letter from HMRC to RFC dated 30 August 2011



2 September 2011 HMRC is successful in obtaining an arrestment of “a seven figure sum” in respect of the tax liability held in RFC’s accounts with the Bank of Scotland.

Source: Multiple media articles the following day, e.g. BBC Report.






14 September 2011 Saffray Champness, who had taken on the role of tax advisors to RFC, appealed the penalty applied by HMRC.

Source: Witness statement by an HM Inspector of Taxes, to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated 21 March 2012, at para 41 of Ref4b.



19 September 2011. Keith Sharp at the SFA emails Ken Olverman at RFC confirming “the good news” that UEFA had verbally accepted RFC’s submission regarding “overdue payables” as at 30 June, and that no update in respect of Future Financial Forecasts (5 months before Rangers entered administration) was required. However he goes on to ask, in the light of Media comment, what the current situation was with regard to the tax liability.

Source: Email from the SFA to RFC dated 19 September 2011 at Ref15



The position taken by the SFA in this email is contradictory, to say the least. RFC’s “self–certified” submission at 30 June with a status of “postponed (awaiting scheduling of payments)” appears to have been verbally accepted by UEFA, so the SFA clearly had some verbal interaction with UEFA in order to be able comment in the email in the terms above. The SFA had to have been aware of the visit of the Sheriff’s Officers in early August 2011, among all the other media commentary at the time, which no doubt prompted the question about the current status of the tax liability. There is no suggestion that the SFA had any concerns about the June 30 submission, but in contrast noted that it was unlikely that there would be any follow up action taken by UEFA. Why would UEFA consider taking action if the submission was in order?



The email is indicative to the SFA having knowledge by September 2011 of an issue relating to the tax liability, but exhibits a lack of intent to probe too deeply into the history of the case. It could be that there was no desire for either the SFA or UEFA to investigate the matter further, as Rangers had already exited both the Champions League and Europa League qualifying at an early stage, therefore there would be little value in seeking sanctions for an earlier inaccurate submission.



It is unclear what dialogue took place between the SFA and UEFA at each stage of the licensing process, but it does not take a huge leap to believe that the SFA was content not to confirm or investigate any of the submissions made by RFC.



28 September 2011 A draft response to the SFA’s request for a status update on their tax liability, in accordance with UEFA’s Article 67, is circulated among RFC officials. The draft claimed that £500,000 had already been paid towards the liability and that discussions on the arrangements to repay the balance were ongoing. Despite the club’s claim, there is no evidence of any sum having been paid towards the liability. Neither HMRC nor D&P make reference to any part payment ever having been received in their court submissions, or statutory reports.

In the email chain that accompanied the draft, there is a reference to the SFA chasing up a response on 3 October 2011. In response Craig Whyte adds that “I have no problem with it in its present form”

Sources: Draft letter for signature by Craig Whyte dated XX September 2011 Ref16, Email chain between RFC officials dated from 28 September to 3 October 2011.



28 September 2011 Saffray Champness, sought to submit a late appeal against the assessments raised on 20 May 2011. This application was rejected by HMRC with full reasons provided by HMRC on 12 October 2011.

Source: Witness statement by an HM Inspector of Taxes, to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated 21 March 2012, at para 42 of Ref4b.



30th September 2011. This date represents the second of two monitoring points in the UEFA Licencing Cycle. The SFA’s request of 19 September 2011 prompted RFC officials to draft a response as noted above. However, RFC had not responded by 3 October, at which point the SFA chased an update. An email from Ken Olverman to the SFA dated 31 January 2012, in connection with the 2012/13 licensing round makes reference to his letter of 4 October 2011, suggesting that the response was sent on that date.

Source: Email from Ken Olverman to the SFA stated 31 January 2012 in Ref17.



If what was ultimately sent to the SFA was in line with the draft then the claims made were plainly untrue. Nothing had been paid towards that liability. Since the previous monitoring point at 30 June 2011, RFC had been subject to a summary warrant and had a substantial sum arrested in their bank account. It is inconceivable that the SFA was unaware of the deteriorating financial status of the club (hence the “good news “ that no Future Financial Forecasts required), but apparently did nothing to either question or highlight the issue. Indeed they stated in their initial query In view of recent media reports, could you provide us with a brief written update of the current situation re the amount due to HMRC, as required under Article 67 of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.”. On that basis, the SFA appears to have colluded with RFC cover up their failure to meet UEFA requirements or scrutinise their finances.

 
gs ...
Res 12 ....unabridged. The Fourth part.(First page)

Persistence Beats Resistance



HOME

CONTACT

CONTENTS



Part 4: 1 October 2011 – April 2012



Previous: Part 3



Defending the indefensible and heading for insolvency



3 October 2011. HMRC writes to RFC asking when the sums arrested in the club’s Bank of Scotland accounts will be released.

Source: Email from Saffray Champness to RFC dated 4 October 2011 in Section 4, “Collection Matters” of Ref19





4 October 2011. Saffrey Champness hold a conference call with HMRC, after which they email a summary of the discussions to RFC officials.



HMRC indicated that they would reject any late appeal of the determinations dated 20 May 2011, leaving the club with the option of going to a Tribunal to obtain leave to appeal. HMRC advised that the Tribunal would likely reject the request, for the same reasons as the Court of Session had rejected the suspension of collection proceedings in August.



HMRC wanted to know by 10 October if RFC wished to withdraw the late appeal to them, failing which HMRC will write to Saffrey formally rejecting the appeal. A later document, dated 24 November, indicates that a request for leave to appeal was made to a Tribunal following rejection by HMRC.

Sources:
Email from Saffray Champness to RFC dated 4 October 2011 in Section 1,
“Discounted Option Scheme” of
Ref19,
Email from Saffray Champness to RFC dated 24 November 2011 at point 1, of
Ref23



12 October 2011 HMRC write to Saffray Champness with full reasons for rejecting their request for a late appeal of the determinations dated 20 May 2011. HMRC described the appeal as “vexatious”.

Source: Witness statement by an HM Inspector of Taxes, to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated 21 March 2012, at para 42 of Ref4b.



19 October 2011 Saffrey Champness emails RFC officials following a phone call with HMRC, expressing concern that, because the arrested funds had not been released, room to manoeuvre was limited. It was accepted that the funds could be used to satisfy outstanding PAYE and VAT liabilities, but noted that the club hadn’t signed the instructions to the bank.

Source: Email from Saffray Champness to RFC dated 19 October 2011 in Ref20



11 November 2011. Saffery Champness sought the opinion of a tax counsel, then emails Gary Withey outlining a strategy and reasons for seeking leave to make a late appeal to a Tribunal against the determinations of 20 May 2011. (The argument that there is no proof the 20 May letter was received is destroyed by the MCR letter of 6th June. This refers to the 20th May HMRC letter the SFA subsequently asked Celtic shareholders lawyer to see during the Compliance Officer investigation starting September 2017)

Source: Email from Saffray Champness to RFC dated 11 November 2011 in Ref21



22 November 2011 Ken Olverman emails Craig Whyte outlining the issues faced in preparing their 2012/13 licence application.
It refers back to the DOS tax liability in the June submission “which we dealt with” That submission described the liability as having a ”status of postponed (awaiting scheduling of payments)” It is not clear if Olverman anticipated that status would continue to be accepted.

Source: Email from Ken Olverman to Craig Whyte RFC dated 11 November 2011 in Ref22



24 November 2011. Following a phone call from HMRC, Saffrey Champness emailed RFC officials with a summary of discussions. The email confirms that an application to a Tribunal for leave to appeal the determinations of 20 May 2011 had been progressed, although no decision had been forthcoming. HMRC confirmed their reasons for issuing out of time determinations on fraud or negligence grounds. It was noted that HMRC had described Ian McMillan, MIH Tax advisor, as a liar. Saffrey Champness also noted that, if HMRC could justify the extended time limits, they “have no fundamental position with regard to the late appeals because we have no material argument that the assessments themselves are incorrect.”

Source: Email from Saffray Champness to RFC officials dated 24 November 2011 in Ref23



24 November 2011. RFC provides the Bank of Scotland with instructions to release the £2.9M funds arrested in September. The funds were to be applied to the outstanding VAT arrears at the request of RFC.

Source: Duff and Phelps Creditors Report dated 5th April 2012 at point 9.26.



7 December 2011 SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan emailed RFC officials with a draft of a proposed press release, ostensibly to quell media speculation about the issuance of a UEFA Licence for season 2011/12. The proposed release justified the issue of a licence on the basis that the tax liability was described as “potential” by the RFC auditors on 30 March 2011 and adding “Since the potential liability was under discussions by Rangers FC and HM Revenue and Customs at 31 March 2011 it could not be considered and overdue payable as defined by Article 50. Clearing such a release with the party suspected of making inaccurate submissions during the licensing process is highly unusual in itself.



The email chain that follows shows the proposed statement itself was met both with incredulity and concern from RFC officials with good reason as the reason for not applying Article 50 was false.. The email chain goes on to confirm that the SFA agreed to put the publication of the statement on hold following representations from RFC, but also that a dinner with Regan and SFA president, Campbell Ogilvie had been arranged for 20 December 2011, to discuss “bigger issues”

Source: Email chain dated 7 December 2011 in Ref7a



3 January 2012. HMRC receives confirmation from Collyer Bristow that “that the Tax Liability Amount remains in my client account. We have received advice that there is a ground for challenge and the Club wish to pursue that challenge”

Source: HMRC Points of Claim to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated xx March 2012, at para 20 of File 2.



31 January 2012. RFC submits a declaration in the form of a UEFA licensing template to the SFA, in preparation for applying for a licence for 2012/13. As well as other issues on Art 50 overdue tax payables it states, “Detail and agree dispute on DOS Tax Case”.


to be continued.......
 
gs ...
Res 12 ....unabridged. The Fourth part.(Second page)



Source: UEFA Licensing template dated 31January 2012 in Ref25



31 January 2012. The covering email sent with the above template refers to the DOS liability as having been appealed. The nature of the appeal is not clear from the email. Had a Tribunal granted leave to appeal the determinations dated 20 May 2011 to a First Tier Tribunal appeal, was that decision still awaited, or was it only the penalty imposed that was subject to appeal?

Note: clarity was provided by HMRC on 10 February 2012 (see below)

Source: Covering email from RFC to SFA dated 31January 2012 in Ref17



1 February 2012. The SFA writes to Ken Olverman seeking proof of the statements in the submission relating to the tax liabilities, stating “the Licensing Committee will need to receive written correspondence to be satisfied that the amount is a genuine legal dispute”

Source: Letter from the SFA to Ken Olverman dated 31January 2012 in Ref26



The SFA’s request for proof of a stated position appears to be a fair one and consistent with UEFA requirements, but it’s a request for supporting documentation that was seemingly lacking throughout the previous licensing. Had the SFA learned from their earlier failings and were unwilling to make the same mistakes?


2 February 2012. Ken Olverman emails Craig Whyte with the SFA’s latest response on Licensing. As well as repeating what he told the SFA, he expresses disappointment at how the arrested funds (now released) and the £500k claimed to have been paid at end of September were applied to arrears by HMRC because it creates more difficulty in meeting licensing requirements.

Source: Email from Ken Olverman to Craig Whyte dated 2 February 2012 in Ref27



10 February 2012. HRMC emails Gary Withey, apparently in response to a time to pay proposal. HMRC formally rejects the proposal as unacceptable, but admonishes Withey in stating that “The only part of the DOS liability under appeal is the penalty” That poses questions about the efficacy of the club’s Licensing template submission to the SFA dated 31 January 2012.HMRC also noted that the Aberdeen Asset Management appeal had gone in favour of HMRC which would render any RFC appeal academic. (AAM’s appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal in respect of their own DOS scheme was rejected on 9 December 2011)

Source: Email from HMRC to Gary Withey dated 10 February 2012 in Ref28



Given the foregoing correspondence, it seems reasonable to conclude that there were never any arguable grounds for a late appeal. It was all about circumventing UEFA FFP rules on an “overdue payable” tax liability that began in the March 2011 application by RFC and continued into the 2012 licensing round.



13 February 2012. Craig Whyte filed a Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators with the Court of Session

Source: Duff and Phelps Creditors Report dated 5th April 2012 at point 5.22.



14 February 2012. HMRC filed a creditors claim of circa £9M and a petition to appoint administrators. After some discussion HMRC withdrew their petition and Duff and Phelps were appointed as administrators of Rangers Football Club plc.

Source: Duff and Phelps Creditors Report dated 5th April 2012 at point 5.23



20 February 2012. Duff and Phelps drop the club’s late appeal against the DOS tax liability

Source: HMRC Points of Claim to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, in March 2012, at paras 13 and 23 of File 2.



This is at odds with HMRC’s own assertion, on 10 February 2012, that only the penalty element was being appealed, but nothing changes on either version being correct.



20 February 2012. Duff and Phelps write to Collyer Bristow requesting the payment of the sums representing the DOS tax liability.

Source: HMRC Points of Claim to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, in March 2012, at paras 23 and 25 of File 2.



2 March 2012. Duff and Phelps confirm receipt of funds from Collyer Bristow representing the DOS tax liability. The funds were held in an account to the order of the court.

Source: HMRC Points of Claim to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated xx March 2012, at para 24 of File 2.



March/April 2012. As part of their responsibilities as administrators, Duff & Phelps initiated “Part 7 claims” against Craig Whyte and Collyer Bristow, in respect of financial undertakings made as part of the Share Purchase Agreement on 6 May 2011, and the recovery of such funds still held by either party. Claims were also made against these funds by five other interested parties, including HMRC. Two submissions into the court proceedings were made on behalf of HMRC, one of which was a witness statement by the HM Inspector of Taxes who was the lead individual working on the case involving RFC’s DOS Liability. Those statements have provided useful background information in preparing this timeline.

Proceedings were formally started at the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, in London on 16 April 2012. The progression and outcome of the claim is not relevant to the purpose of the timeline, save to say that HMRC received £86,469.06 as their share of the recovered sums in an out of court settlement.

Sources:
HMRC Points of Claim to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated xx March 2012, at para 24 of
File 2.
Witness statement by an HM Inspector of Taxes, to an action at the High Court of Justice in London, dated 21 March 2012, at para 42 of
Ref4b.
BDO Creditors Report dated 12 June 2015, Section 2 Receipts & Payments, Funds Proceedings of
Funds Proceedings



 
gs ...
Res 12 ....unabridged. The Fifth part.(First page)



Persistence Beats Resistance



HOME

CONTACT

CONTENTS



Part 5 – 15 March 2012 to February 2013 – The Lord Nimmo Smith Linkage



Previous: Part 4



The Linkage between The UEFA Licence 2011 and the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission in 2012/2013.



17/21 Feb 2012. Although better informed as a result of his conversation with Andrew Dickson on 6th December 2011 in respect of the unlawfulness of DOS EBTS, where HMRC were pursuing the non-payment of proper tax under PAYE terms, SFA CEO Stewart Regan met Lord Nimmo Smith on Feb 2012 to decide the Terms of Reference for the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal charging Craig Whyte with bringing the game into disrepute.

Somehow the charges (on page 50 Disciplinary Charge 4) neglected to mention Craig Whyte’s failure to meet his undertaking in June 2011 to pay the £2.8m tax bill arising from unlawful use of DOS EBTs, yet referred to charges on other taxes not being paid.

By February 2012 it was abundantly clear the wee tax bill had not been paid after Sherriff Officers called to start collection proceedings in August 10th, 2011. Any enquiry of HMRC in February of 2012 would have confirmed the amount was still outstanding.

Did this exclusion prevent Lord Nimmo Smith from having any understanding of the nature of DOS EBTS?

A detailed timeline of events in 2012 can be found on an E Tims Article here and what Lord Nimmo Smith was told or not told can perhaps be deduced from a later “ Reasons” document produced on 12 September 2012 posted below.



5 March 2012; Under direction of Neil Doncaster the then SPL lawyers Harper McLeod, write to Duff and Phelps RFC Administrators requesting all documentation relating to all EBTs with side letters used by RFC since 1st July 1998 be disclosed to them SPL Announcement

This included HMRC letters of 23 February and 20th May 2011 which mention the De Boer side letter of August 2000, and describe the DOS EBT scheme used in detail Ref2 and Ref11





March/April 2012. Duff and Phelps as authors of a Points of Claim made at that time use information that can be found in both the 23 Feb 2011 and 20th May 2011 HMRC letters. This suggests they had knowledge in the spring of 2012 of the unlawful EBTs of 2000 and the HMRC documents describing them, which asks why they failed to disclose the latter to the SPL lawyers. Sources 10.8 to 10.10 of Administration Progress Report here and paras 9 & 11 here .



21 March 2012 as part of pursuit of their Points of Claim the HMRC official responsible for establishing HMRC were owed tax dating back to 2001-02 provided Testimony at The High Court of Justice that sets out when HMRC first notified Rangers in June 2004 that they were going to open an enquiry into a tax return filed by the club for 2001 -2002 and reports efforts to establish liability and then obtain payment from early May 2011 to February 2012.. Ref 29a



12 August 2012. The SPL announce the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission which set the date of 23 November 2000 as an issue under inquiry.

Source LNS Decision February 2013



“ C. Issues for Inquiry into and Determination by the Commission

Whether during:-

the period from 23 November 2000 until 21 May 2002 (inclusive) Rangers PLC, whilst a member of the Company and the owner and operator of Rangers FC, and Rangers FC, whilst a member of the Scottish Premier League, breached Rule D10.2.3 by making and/or entering into EBT Payments and Arrangements in respect of the Specified Players

and/or the Specified Players

and/or other Players employed by Rangers PLC without detailing same in the relevant Players’ Contracts of Service;



12 September 2012. As a result of questions raised after his appointment to the SPL Commission investigating Rangers use of side letters and ebts Lord Nimmo Smith



to be continued.........
 
gs ...
Res 12 ....unabridged. The Fifth part.( Second page)



produced a “Reasons” report in which the significance of the DOS EBTS was dismissed and yet no one at the SFA or SPL questioned his reasons for doing so.

Source: The original LNS “Reasons” report has been removed from the SPFL web site for some reason but a copy is held here along with comments in red at various sections but the key extracts in relation to DOS EBTS with comments in red are:



[14] The topic of the employee benefit trust (“EBT”) referred to in the Issues before this Commission was touched upon in two paragraphs (and only those two) of the report of the Special Committee of the SFA, (produced in February/March 2012- see above- but never made public) but no recommendation was made to the Board in that regard. The main reasons for not making a recommendation were:

(1) the EBT came into existence several years before the period with which the Special Committee was concerned; This will be the DOS ebts which did precede Craig Whyte taking over RFC but in the Takeover Agreement he undertook to pay the liability that was discovered as a result of due diligence by Wavetower in March 2011. The failure to pay it by CW was deserving of inclusion in the Judicial Panel that charged him with bringing the game into disrepute as were the charges relating to non payment of PAYE and VAT, but for some reason it wasn’t.

and (2) there was in any event no sufficiently clear evidence of a breach of SFA Article 12.3 to justify any further action at that stage.
Au contraire – there was ample evidence in the form of HMRC letters to RFC from November 2010 to 20th May 2011 to justify a breach of Article 12.3 which says

“12.3 All payments, benefits or consideration of any description which are to be made to a player by or on behalf of a club in respect of or in connection with that player’s playing or training activities for the said club (other than re-imbursement of expenses actually incurred) must be fully recorded within a written agreement between the club and the player which must be submitted to the Scottish FA.”



Conclusion

From the date range that the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission was directed to cover beginning 23 November 2000 it can safely be assumed that the De Boer side letters nor HMRC reference to it were provided to the SPL by Duff and Phelps, who clearly had knowledge of the case from their Points of Claim in March 2012.

Had the two HMRC letters of Feb and May 2011 been provided, the terms of reference of the LNS Commission would have to reflect those EBTS that had already been deemed unlawful by the Aberdeen Asset Management FTT in late 2010 (see Part 1 of timeline).

The start date of the eventual LNS Commission would also have to have been 30th August 2000 as that was first use of an EBT with side letter by RFC. Significantly correspondence with SFA of 26 April 2016 shows that the 20th May letter should have been provided by Rangers to the SFA on receipt in May and it is unclear from SFA reply whether or not and when the SFA had this letter.

The significance of the wee tax case letters of February and May 2011 (the latter which the SFA should have had in their possession under UEFA FFP rules after its arrival in May 2011) with the term “fraudulent “included, is unlikely to have been lost on the SFA in damage limitation terms , so it is not surprising that any reference to information in the wee tax case documentation is noticeable by its absence from scrutiny when the Terms of Reference for the Craig Whyte JPDT were first discussed with Lord Nimmo smith on 17th February 2012..

In both the matter of the UEFA Licence in 2011 and LNS Commissioning in 2012 the 20th May 2011 HMRC letter’s non-disclosure at the time it was required under UEFA FFP and requested in March 2012 by SPL lawyers was crucial in terms of influencing major decisions made by Lord Nimmo Smith one justification for which was in para 108 of his Decision where he said



While there is no question of dishonesty, individual or corporate we nevertheless take the view that the nondisclosure must be regarded as deliberate.



There is no question that non disclosure was deliberate as Lord Nimmo Smith decided but those HMRC letters suggest that there was dishonesty involved, possibly fraud, and the non disclosure of the 20th May 2011 letter in 2011 and 2012 ( the implications of which the SFA (not surprisingly) have refused to revisit in September 2017 in response to an SPFL request) continue to affect the integrity of the governance of Scottish Football 5 years later and remain a stigma on our game .



Note: For a full narrative on how the LNS Commission was set up (and “set up” is appropriate) read the blogs starting from the Index to LNS Set up

 
There is also the correspondence between parties which follows, which is even more angry-fying....if that is possible.......

for your delectation gs.........!!!


Home

“Res 12”, as it became known, was taken from the resolution presented by a group of shareholders to the Celtic Board in Resolution 12 at the Celtic AGM held on 15 November 2013.

The resolution read as follows:

“This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.”

In simple terms it requested that Celtic ask UEFA to review the SFA’s licensing processes to establish if they fully complied with the then current Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play regulations.

The resolution does not mention Rangers, but the sentiment behind it came from a belief that there were serious doubts about the Club’s submissions and the SFA’s actions during the 2011/12 licensing round. If Rangers was only granted a UEFA Licence to play in the Champions League through their deliberate submission of inaccurate information, then Celtic , having finished second in the league, had effectively been denied a place in UEFA’s premier competition and any rewards that might have accrued from their participation.

In fact, those doubts had existed since August 2011, when Sheriff’s officers visited Ibrox seeking payment of an overdue tax liability. That event was first debated on blogs, message boards and other social media platforms, with the question

‘How could Rangers have complied with the UEFA regulations and monitoring requirements on Overdue Payables, if their financial position had deteriorated to the extent that necessitated a visit from Sheriff’s Officers?’

As we are all aware, Rangers well documented financial problems resulted in their entering administration on 14 February 2012 and then into liquidation on 31 October 2012. However, the original doubts about the licensing process were only confirmed when a number of leaked documents appeared in the public domain in the summer of 2013. The provenance of these documents may well be questioned, but their veracity and authenticity has not been and when presented to Celtic in that summer of 2013 the documents should have provided cause to refer the matter to UEFA, who had the authority to ask for the originals under CFCB rules. Why that never happened is a bit of a mystery to this day.

Exchanges between some Celtic small shareholders resulted in a decision to formally ask Celtic to intervene, by way of a resolution to the club’s AGM in November 2013, which was an approach that could not be ignored. It is necessary for such a resolution to have the support of 5% of the shares in issue. That threshold was reached by a mixture of e mails and hard ground work in time for what became Resolution 12 to be included on the Notice of Annual General Meeting sent out to all shareholders.

Based on the leaked documents and the understanding of Tax rules and UEFA FFP at the time it was initially believed that Rangers had probably lied in their submissions at the UEFA monitoring points at 30 June and 30 September 2011. However, documents that have subsequently been lawfully obtained suggest that such deceit extended to the original application for a licence pre 31 March 2011.



Conclusions

In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary It can only be concluded that:

  1. Whilst the SFA acted in good faith when granting the licence in 2011, that Rangers FC did not in both the documentation they did provide to the SFA and then what they failed to provide, in order to obtain and retain a UEFA licence that amounted to what is known in legal terms as a False Pretence
  2. The SFA do however have questions to answer regarding:
    2.1. How they handled the matter after 10 August 2011 when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox to collect a £2.8 million tax overdue payable to HMRC.
    2.2. The role the SFA played in the SPL investigation from March 2012 into the use by Rangers of Employee Benefit Trusts with side letters that led to the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.
    2.3. How the SFA dealt with enquiries from Celtic made on the behalf of their shareholders beginning in 2014 and subsequently from April 2015 to date in response to lawyers acting on behalf of the shareholders who raised Resolution 12, because of unsatisfactory responses to enquiries made on their behalf by Celtic in 2014.


The detail of events which support these views can be read in Two Timelines.

Timeline One relates to Conclusion 1 and 2.1 to 2.2 above covering the period 2010 to 2012 including the commissioning of Lord Nimmo Smith . It can be read consecutively beginning here, or in its constituent parts viz:

Part 1: The Wee Tax Case Timeline: What Story Does It Tell?

Part 2: 5 May 2011 – 6 June 2011:- The takeover and HMRC enforcement

Part 3: 30 June 2011 – 30 September 2011:- UEFA monitoring and HMRC lose patience

Part 4: 1 October 2011 – April 2012 :- Defending the indefensible and heading for insolvency.

Part 5 – 15 March 2012 to February 2013 – The Lord Nimmo Smith Linkage

Timeline Two relates to Conclusion 2.3 above which covers exchanges between Celtic/Celtic shareholders and the SFA including a reference to UEFA in 2016 that can be read in its constituent parts viz:

Part One – December 2014 to April 2015 Shareholders Engagement with SFA via Celtic.

Part Two July 2015 – December 2016 Shareholders Independent Engagement with SFA/UEFA via a Law Firm.

Part Three June 2017 to date – After The Trial was Over.

Whilst what took place during 2011/12 was the catalyst for Resolution 12, it was not driven by any desire to harm a club that was already undergoing liquidation, but by a desire to demonstrate that the Scottish Football Association was unprofessional in conducting its governing duties and that the lack of transparency and accountability enabled them to do so then and continues to this day uncorrected.

Resolution 12 wanted to send out a message that the SFA were accountable to clubs who were in turn accountable to shareholders where the club was a Public Limited Company (PLC) and that shareholders concerns simply could not be ignored when big decisions provided one club with money at the expense of other member clubs.

Resolution 12 in its dogged pursuit was an attempt at bringing transparency and accountability into future clubs’/SFA thinking to prevent a reoccurrence in Scottish football of events since 2000. The same kind of thinking by the member clubs of the SFA that will produce the same results in future if not heeded.

That attempt is being doggedly resisted and one device consistently being used by the SFA has been to present Resolution 12 as a Celtic fan v Rangers fan issue and so deflect from their own failings which can clearly be seen under Timeline Two and which the SFA has resisted any attempts at correcting on the excuse it would be raking over coals.

If there is one group of supporters in Scotland who would have benefitted from proper governance at the SFA since 1999 it is Glasgow Rangers and if they can but just lay their prejudices aside and look at the facts in both Timelines they can only reach the same conclusion, that they were ill served by an unaccountable and opaque SFA from 2000 to 2012 and continue to be so.

If, having read the narrative you wish to contact your club’s supporter Association or Trusts to establish their position on good honest football governance a list of contacts can be found HERE .

Currently we intend to use this resource as a repository for information on Resolution 12 and related issues. If you wish to comment on the content of the blog or the direction of travel of our campaign, please direct your comments to The Scottish Football Monitor, specifically the “Accountability via Transparency” article . On SFM there is wide representation of fans of all Scottish clubs, and we do not believe that Celtic fans and shareholders have a monopoly on the desire for accountability and transparency at the SFA.​



Next: The Wee Tax Case – What story does it tell?


There's more........
 
The best bits and getting to where we are now.....



Persistence Beats Resistance





HOME

CONTACT

CONTENTS



Timeline Two – Part 1: Correspondence and engagement between Celtic, SFA and UEFA on Behalf of Celtic Shareholders:



Previous: Timeline 1 Part 5



Part One. 2014 to 2015 Shareholders Engagement with SFA via Celtic.

30 December 2013. Following the 2013 AGM shareholders met with Celtic to raise their concerns based primarily on an HMRC letter of 20th May 2011 which suggested Rangers had acted fraudulently or negligently in the matter of their use of DOS ebts from 2000 to 2003. Shareholders were shown replies from SFA to enquiries made by Celtic on which basis Celtic’s response to Resolution 12 was it was unnecessary (because Celtic had already asked questions to which answers had been given) However shareholders were encouraged to expand upon their concerns and to set out and detail some of the information that had come to their attention and which had not been put to, or addressed by, the SFA or any other concerned body.

January/February 2014. The conclusion the Res 12 requistitioners representatives reached was that further correspondence with the SFA was necessary to satisfy the shareholders they represented that all questions in respect of the concerns that produced Resolution 12 were addressed.

27 February 2014. There was a helpful meeting to review the substantial progress made since the last meeting and the Res12 group were to provide further information that was discussed with reference to shareholders’ concerns regarding the 2011 process, so that Celtic could consider matters further.

30 April 2014. Celtic receive suggestions from shareholders for inclusion in letter to SFA and appreciate what is behind them and are nearly good to go.

11 May 2014. Celtic inform shareholders verbally that they have after 4 months from the initial meeting gone to SFA with shareholder information and concerns.

23 May 2014. This update posted on social media (CQN/Phil MacGiolla Bhain)

“There was a series of meetings between the Celtic Company Secretary and shareholder’s representatives to examine the detail of the full UEFA licensing process over the summer of 2011.Celtic agreed there are a number of questions to be answered by the SFA, which were formulated in discussions with the shareholders’ representatives. Based on these Celtic has written to the SFA for clarification of the process as conducted by the SFA and UEFA and is following up that correspondence with the SFA. It is not possible to predict at this point what the outcome will be but all the indications are that the issues raised by the shareholders are being pursued with the SFA.”

14 July 2014 . Scheduled meeting between Celtic and SFA postponed. SFA have had Celtic letter for 2 months with no response.

1 August 2014. Meeting with Celtic to prepare for a meeting with SFA re Celtic letter of circa 11th May 2014. This focused on HMRC letters of May 2011 resulting in provision of relevant documentation (HMRC letter of 20th May and attachments which were determinations [i.e. estimates] of tax due from 2001) for Celtic to take to SFA to support the point being pursued at that time in 2014 that by 30 June 2011(a key monitoring point an overdue payable existed) yet the monitoring submission was accepted by UEFA. The crucial question for the SFA was were they aware of the existence of the 20th May 2011 letter when passing on the Rangers submission in July 2011 and again later in September 2011 when UEFA verbally accepted the submission after discussions with the SFA?

4 August 2014. Celtic meet SFA to discuss letter of circa 11th May 2014.

22 August 2014. Shareholders meet Celtic to hear SFA response. The SFA were reported as saying they did not have the 20th May 2011 HMRC letter in their files and because of the questionable provenance of the letter Celtic were unwilling to press the matter if that question was subsequently asked. The SFA Procedures Compliance official Andrew McKinley was reported as saying that the SFA were willing to explore the matter further with shareholders representatives. There was a sense of disappointment at Celtic’s provenance reservations which could have been addressed by passing Resolution 12 and a sense that Resolution 12 had ran into a cul de sac (or more long grass). However, on considering the matter it was decided that hiring a law firm to present shareholders concerns to the SFA was a route to be explored using contacts in the legal world.

20 April; 2015. Whilst this extended exploration took place an anonymous attempt by Resolution 12 shareholder representatives at presenting the issues and questions direct to the SFA was made on 20th April 2015 but (not unexpectedly even allowing for encouragement by Celtic to do so) was resisted by the SFA, who only wished to deal with member clubs. This stance conveniently provided an excuse for SFA to avoid dealing with the issue in 2015 using the powers given to them under UEFA FFP. It subsequently cost Celtic shareholders over £10k and rising to pursue answers that would satisfy the justification for Resolution 12 (loss of share value) one way or another.

Note the above is drawn from e mail exchanges between shareholder representatives and Celtic relating to meetings, hence lack of references to documentation, something Part Two provides.




 
Timeline 2 part 2 (First part)




Persistence Beats Resistance





HOME

CONTACT

CONTENTS



Timeline Two – Part Two: Shareholders Independent Engagement with SFA/UEFA via a Law Firm.



Previous: Timeline 2 Part 1



Part Two Shareholders Independent Engagement with SFA/UEFA via a Law Firm.

23 July 2015. Consequently, and after difficulty finding a solicitor not already conflicted on Rangers and legal issues, the SFA were written to on 23th July 2015 repeating the questions the SFA would not address on 20th April 2015 all at a cost to shareholders in Celtic, a full member of the SFA who should expect reciprocal good faith in terms of fair treatment from the national association..

10 August 2015. The SFA responded on this day stating the SFA would only correspond with Celtic, which was surprising as they had been told to expect a communication from the shareholders after the SFA met Celtic in August 2014. They also asked for the identities of the solicitor’s clients which again was a surprise as they were aware that this was an approach from legitimate Celtic shareholders in pursuit of settlement of the adjourned Resolution 12 from 2013 Celtic AGM. This prevarication is not the behaviour of an organisation who claim to be trusted and transparent.

November 2015. In response to a reminder 13 November 2015 the SFA replied 30 November 2015 under Scottish Football Licensing Procedures and UEFA Monitoring and Compliance Procedures 2011/2012 ” Further to the above and your letter of 13 November there appears to have been a breakdown in communications as our position remains as set out in my letter of 10th August. I have had recent discussions with our member club Celtic FC in relation to this matter and am happy to continue to do so.” Comment: As long as it did not mean responding to questions posed in our letter of 23 July.

NB: The questions posed in the shareholders legal representative’s letter of 23 July were not addressed

14 March 2016. On this day after further informal requests to Celtic for a response, the SFA finally after 8 months, responded to July 2015 letter. This bore no relation to the questions asked in the solicitor’s letter and stated that external advice had been obtained that confirmed licence grant (and monitoring) had been properly conducted.

This response has since become unreliable and indeed questionable when SFA Compliance Officer began an investigation into the granting in April 2011 following statements at the Craig Whyte trial in June 2017 confirming the £2.8m liability had been accepted before the end of March 2011. This key information was specifically mentioned in the July 2015 letter to SFA, so on what basis was that external advice (which also covered the monitoring in June and September 2011) obtained and who was it obtained from following what enquiries?

20 April 2016. On this day the SFA were written to including a list of shareholders who had mandated the author of the letter to let them be identified to the SFA to circumvent the anonymity excuse previously used by SFA to avoid answering fully.

(At this point the focus was not on the granting but monitoring period. However this subsequently changed two months later because of a CAS Ruling on Gianinna FC tax overdue payables that clearly set out the intent of UEFA FFP Article 50).
On April 2016 the SFA were asked if the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) had been informed of arrival at Rangers of 20th May 2011 HMRC letter as required by UEFA FFP Article 55(e). SFA told that if no reply received the matter would be taken up with UEFA direct.

26 April 2016. Response from SFA on this day in which the SFA state what UEFA later confirmed, which is that the monitoring process starts on submission by the licensor of the list of licenses granted. The SFA as licensor did not submit the list until 26th May 2011 which strongly suggests anything before then was a granting responsibility of the SFA and adds to the impression the SFA were deliberately misleading in responses to enquiries thereafter in relation to their licensing responsibilities. The SFA also pointed out it was the responsibility of Rangers FC to inform them of the 20th May letter for SFA to then pass to UEFA, but are fuzzy on whether RFC did so and when.

With reference to the earlier Timeline entry starting 15 March 2012 relating to the Lord Nimmo Smith commissioning – Celtic had reported verbally to requistitioners in August 2014 that SFA did not have the letter of 20th May 2011 in SFA files, however the SFA appear to be backtracking in the 26th April letter saying “ Even if the information that your clients have brought to our attention was not before us, AND WE DO NOT ACCEPT THAT, it is arguable “ etc.

Are SFA saying they did have the 20th May letter in their files and if so when, and if before March 2012 why was it not shared with Harper MacLeod acting on behalf of the SPL in establishing the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission? Or did the SFA provide misleading information in terms of what was in their files to the Celtic Company Secretary who reported so to bemused shareholders in Aug 2014? If the SFA did have that 20thMay 2011 letter, why was it not given to the SPL given the serious impact its absence has had on the credibility of the Lord Nimmo Smith Decision that states no question of dishonesty? This is a crucial question for any investigation into the 2011 licence but is perhaps why SFA reluctant to rake over coals.

Even allowing for the 20th May letter not being provided immediately to the SFA did the SFA have no checking responsibilities whatsoever to confirm the true status of the liability as reported to them in June 2011 given statements made in the press on 1st April 2011and in RFC Interim Accounts where what had been a potential liability had become a postponed one by 30 June 2011? ?


to be continued.......
 
Timeline 2 part 2 (Second part)



27 May 2016. After an agreement was reached with Celtic and SFA on involving UEFA Club Licensing Department rather than UEFA CFCB, the Res12 solicitor wrote to Andrea Traverso UEFA Head of Club Licensing. seeking clarification in terms of

when SFA and UEFA monitoring responsibilities start and end:

when SFA have to act when informed of possible failings in the process:
and

repeating earlier unanswered questions about the license granted to Rangers and subsequent monitoring. [27th May Solicitors Letter ]

1 June 2016. Interestingly the SFA made an unexpected public announcement at their AGM concerning UEFA involvement in Resolution 12 saying SFA were satisfied they had granted licence properly and would comply with any requests for information from UEFA.

8 June 2016. Letter 8th June received from UEFA by Res12 Solicitor [ Source ] where UEFA state that UEFA licence was granted on 19th April and list submitted to them on 26thMay, 5 days after the tax bill arrived at Ibrox and 20 days after the Takeover of RFC by when the Takeover undertaking to pay HMRC the overdue £2.8m liability should have been met.

UEFA explain that any sanction for having an overdue payable at the monitoring stage would apply in 2012/13 (so no loss to Celtic shareholders in 2011.)

They further offered, unsolicited, but to justify not investigating, that no sanctions could now apply to Rangers FC because UEFA view The Rangers FC/Rangers International FC) and current SFA member, as a new club/company, who were ineligible to apply for a UEFA licence (from 2012 until 2015 when a 3 years’ membership period of the SFA would have been reached) and so who as far as UEFA were concerned could not be sanctioned for behaviour of RFC as TRFC/RIFC are a different football club/company from Rangers Football Club whose name appeared on the last application made by Rangers FC for a UEFA Licence made to SFA in March 2012 which was refused prior to their liquidation in October 2012 and where it is clear under “Timing” that the relevant date for reporting tax overdue under Article 50 of UEFA FFP is 31st March.)

Finally, UEFA pointed out that as the event in question was over 5 years old they would not investigate under a UEFA time bar although this is not so if corruption is involved.

The UEFA reply of 8th June 2016 (summarised above) along with the CAS Decision on Giannina FC mentioned earlier raised a number of points that led to a change of focus from the monitoring period based on 30th June under Article 66 to also include the granting period based on 31st March 2011 under UEFA FFP Article 50

After weeks of deliberation both on the dates provided in the UEFA response, the earlier responses by SFA and how the Greek FA and UEFA dealt with a similar case in 2013 involving Giannina FC focus moved to end of March /Mid April 2011 when the licence was granted by the SFA.

The Giannina case went to the Court of Arbitration on Sport (CAS), where the outcome suggests that in the Greek club’s case acceptance of a tax liability from a previous year and not paid by 31st March without a written agreement with the Greek tax authority being in place by then to postpone/ schedule payments, that an overdue payable as UEFA define one did exist at Rangers FC before and at 31st March 2011.

Readers of The Tax Justice Network/ The Offshore Game Report (TJN/TOG) will know that this was their stance in terms of the overdue aspect of the wee tax liability and The Giannina case suggests, not surprisingly, TJN/TOG knew their tax business.

Perhaps of greater significance in terms of the SFA and UEFA’s reluctance to investigate as justified in their 8th June letter, is the avoidance of answering questions posed on 27th May 2016 re the impact of side letters.

The UEFA investigation of Giannina FC identified their use of private agreements as another reason for a UEFA licence to be refused. (Private agreements have it in common with the side letters issued with EBTs by RFC that they were kept private from the national association and in UEFA’s view in respect of Giannina were not fairly presented in the club accounts in breach of Article 47 of UEFA FFP.) This requirement also existed in the earlier UEFA licensing regulations effective from 2005.

The deliberations and research into the above issues on dates, time bar and Giannina eventually produced a draft where issues were identified and documented at some length.

Following discussions these issues coalesced into a solicitor’s letter that drew on material available in public to avoid any risk of prejudicing upcoming court cases, pointing out why the UEFA response of 8th June 2016 failed not only to understand the issue, but address the possible regulatory failings in their process.

29 September 2016. This letter was sent on 29 September 2016 not only to Mr A Traverso UEFA’s Head of Club Licensing, but also Mr Leterme Head of UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB).

12 October 2016. UEFA Club Licensing Department replied on 12 October 2016 essentially saying they will not deal directly with our solicitor as he is not representing the SFA or Celtic and cannot add to what they provided already. No answer was received from the CFCB and it is likely they would take the same stance.

15 December 2016. Following the AGM of Nov 2016 shareholder representatives met with Celtic to discuss the way forward. Celtic were provided with copies of the information gleaned from the following two sources:

As result of Shareholders lawyer’s correspondence with SFA and UEFA and

The above enhanced by information published online in 2013 which at that point could not be used because of the trial of Craig Whyte.

Celtic were advised to wait on the outcome of both the final Supreme Court decision on Rangers use of EBTS and the outcome of the Craig Whyte trial expected during 2017 as both should have strengthened the case for investigation, hence Part Three begins six months later on 6 June 2017.

(Comment on the 8h June response from Andre Traverso UEFA Head of Club Licensing in respect of the new club/company information: .

How this new club/company information in the Traverso letter copied to the SFA was dealt with by SFA Head of Communications and his other interactions with the Guardian and STV can be read at Who Is Conning Whom. It suggests a story of the SFA using the media to misinform supporters.)

 
And in summation gs......



Persistence Beats Resistance



HOME

CONTACT

CONTENTS



Timeline Two Part Three – After The Trial was Over – June 2017 to date.


Previous Timeline 2 Part 2

• 6 June 2017 Craig Whyte trial ends but during its course it was revealed that the £2.8m liability relating to the wee tax case had been accepted by Rangers and as the CAS ruling on Giannina shows this means an overdue payable existed at 31st March 2011 which conflicts with the main justification given by SFA for granting a licence.
• 25th July to 4th September 2017. Celtic and SFA exchange correspondence in respect of a review of events following the Supreme Court decision on the unlawful use of EBTs by Rangers. Celtic and SFA_Correspondence.pdf

• 7 Sept 2017. It is reported in the Times that Celtic first raised the same issues relating to EBTs and player registration in May 2012. (if you are not a Times subscriber the letter can be read from the Sun link that follows).

• This was copied to UEFA according to The Sun ( but for those who prefer not to visit that site a clear copy can be read here ) which begs the question what was UEFA’s response/position? Did it influence Celtic’s subsequent response to Resolution 12?

• 9 September 2017. BBC report that SFA are rejecting request for a wide ranging enquiry but said this on the UEFA licence issue:

“ “Upon considering the action taken in the past six years by all football bodies, and mindful of the ongoing nature of [the Compliance Officer looking at the granting of the UEFA licence in April 2011], the Board of the Scottish FA agreed at its meeting on 10 August 2017 that a further independent review will serve no meaningful purpose and, indeed, could negatively impact upon the ongoing investigations [by the Compliance Officer].” see this BBC Report

• 15 May 2018. After eight and a half months of investigation the BBC report that the SFA have charged Rangers on two counts of non compliance of their Articles in respect of the granting of a UEFA Licence in 2011. Rangers are reported as responding that the SFA accepted they complied with UEFA FFP in respect of the granting at end of March 2011, that accusations made against the club were groundless and consequently the charges relating to the granting period were dropped and Rangers would fiercely resist the reconstructed notice of complaint relating to the monitoring period.

In view of the timeline information provided earlier here relating to the end of March 2011, this response is surprising and extremely troubling. The reasons the SFA were given for so doing have to be explained by the SFA to Celtic and their shareholders in view of the assertions by The Rangers FC that accusations made against the club were groundless.

Who made those accusations? Certainly not Celtic nor their shareholders under Resolution 12 that only asked that the circumstances under which the licence was processed in 2011 be investigated by UEFA CFCB.*

25 June 2018 As consequence of the statement by TRFC that end of March activity by Rangers FC had been excluded from JPDT scrutiny in the Daily Record of 15th May 2018, the Res12 lawyer wrote to SFA Compliance Officer on 25th June 2018 stating reasons why this exclusion was questionable and possibly serious.. The seriousness depends on the discussions in March 2018 between TRFC and the Compliance Officer where the latter was persuaded by TRFC to exclude the period at end of March 2011 from JPDT scrutiny as the information provided in the Res12 lawyer letter shows a payable existed at 31st March 2011 which WAS overdue as UEFA define it. What were the reasons TRFC gave the SFA in March 2018 and did they align with the HMRC minutes of 21st March 2011 which were provided to SFA under the Res12 letter of 25th June 2018. ?

29 June 2018: Copies sent to Celtic after close of play having first drawn their attention to the exclusion issue on 22 May 2018.
10 August 2018. Celtic meet representatives from Res12, the Celtic Supporters Association and a representative of bloggers from social media to discuss content of letter of 25th June and lack of SFA response. Celtic left with a document suggesting UEFA Licence should not have been granted on grounds of breaches of two UEFA rules both of which involved dishonesty/fraud breach of good faith. Celtic left to consider the document (see here ) and contemplate next steps if the narrative contained was accurate. A further meeting to be arranged early September to hear response.

• 15 November 2018. New SFA Compliance officer was seen in mid October by Celtic : she had not had time to come to grips with issue and could not access previous Compliance Officers In Box. A Copy of 25th Letter was supplied but no word on SFA position at 15th November 2018. Signatories whose e mail address held sent an update by e mail prior to Celtic AGM on 21st November suggesting UEFA involvement was a way forward based on recent UEFA statements.

• 16 November 2018. A number of reservations and questions ( See ) were made from the floor about the SFA position as reported at the AGM where the only assurance was that something was going to CAS but why and when was not known by Celtic.

• 4 Jan 2019. Following a meeting with Celtic it was agreed shareholders lawyer should provide a note of assistance to the Compliance Officer, who in September 2018 replaced the previous Compliance Officer responsible for the non compliance charges of 15 May 2018 relating to June and September 2011 only and which excluded the licence granting period of end of March/mid April 2011 from Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal (JPDT) scrutiny, with no justifying reasoning for the exclusion that aligns with the information in the HMRC Minutes of 21st March 2011 drawn to her predecessor’s attention on 25th June by the Resolution 12 lawyer.

29 March 2019. Delivery of letter delayed whilst advice sought from an experienced criminal lawyer in relation to March 2011 that has required a change in approach in letter to SFA now under draft.



To be continued……

(* The CFCB was the body that Resolution 12 signatories asked Celtic to engage with on their behalf in 2013 because the CFCB has powers to request documentation that would either demonstrate Celtic shareholders’ fears of incorrect application of the rules by the SFA in 2011 were unfounded or inform UEFA that their rules were not robust enough to meet UEFA’s intent and needed strengthening. Any attempt by the SFA to ring fence the investigation and charges should be resisted and UEFA/CAS involved if that happens if not the police regarding possible fraud.)


 
....take your time gs.......you've always got it now.....
(I hope the font and presentation came out ok)

...I've just qualified as a Res 12 Honourary Emeritus...... after completing that lot, at the University Of Dundee.....think auldheid needs me as one of his paralegals.

:giggle::giggle::giggle:
yes gs my friend...one day we will all be smiling over this and its conclusion....
well at least anyone that matters will.

Noli, Illegitemi. Carborundum..... (Never Let the Bastards Grind You Under)
 
Any idea when we can read the rest of this document..thanks
....take your time gs.......you've always got it now.....
(I hope the font and presentation came out ok)

...I've just qualified as a Res 12 Honourary Emeritus...... after completing that lot, at the University Of Dundee.....think auldheid needs me as one of his paralegals.

:giggle::giggle::giggle:
yes gs my friend...one day we will all be smiling over this and its conclusion....
well at least anyone that matters will.

Noli, Illegitemi. Carborundum..... (Never Let the Bastards Grind You Under)
Thanks JC,that was some powerful reading,I dont say I understood 100% of it but I definitely got what it is about,how stupid do these SFA people think we are,they must know they have to come clean at sometime,looks like the end is very close mate,,looking forward to it,,Thanks again..HH.
 
Geneve Tribune advertisement for Res 12, the morning paper of choice at UEFA HQ...View attachment 4045

Is there a date attached to that newspaper article Captain?

It would be interesting to know how Switzerland's press is putting over Scottish football's corrupt hierarchy to the sleepwalkers in their Nyon HQ!

If this is a topical, current or even recent headline, then UEFA should use it to deflect away from their own venality and sleaze hopefully to sink the old SFA/hun below the waterline, never to return.

:devilish::devilish:
 
There is also the correspondence between parties which follows, which is even more angry-fying....if that is possible.......

for your delectation gs.........!!!


Home

“Res 12”, as it became known, was taken from the resolution presented by a group of shareholders to the Celtic Board in Resolution 12 at the Celtic AGM held on 15 November 2013.

The resolution read as follows:

“This AGM requests the Board exercise the provision contained in the Procedural Rules Governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body Article 10 with jurisdiction and investigation responsibilities identified in articles 3 & 11 (Note 1), by referring/bringing to the attention of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), the licensing administration practices of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), requesting the CFCB undertake a review and investigate the SFA’s implementation of UEFA & SFA license compliance requirements, with regard to qualification, administration and granting of licenses to compete in football competitions under both SFA and UEFA jurisdiction, since the implementation of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations of 2010.”

In simple terms it requested that Celtic ask UEFA to review the SFA’s licensing processes to establish if they fully complied with the then current Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play regulations.

The resolution does not mention Rangers, but the sentiment behind it came from a belief that there were serious doubts about the Club’s submissions and the SFA’s actions during the 2011/12 licensing round. If Rangers was only granted a UEFA Licence to play in the Champions League through their deliberate submission of inaccurate information, then Celtic , having finished second in the league, had effectively been denied a place in UEFA’s premier competition and any rewards that might have accrued from their participation.

In fact, those doubts had existed since August 2011, when Sheriff’s officers visited Ibrox seeking payment of an overdue tax liability. That event was first debated on blogs, message boards and other social media platforms, with the question

‘How could Rangers have complied with the UEFA regulations and monitoring requirements on Overdue Payables, if their financial position had deteriorated to the extent that necessitated a visit from Sheriff’s Officers?’

As we are all aware, Rangers well documented financial problems resulted in their entering administration on 14 February 2012 and then into liquidation on 31 October 2012. However, the original doubts about the licensing process were only confirmed when a number of leaked documents appeared in the public domain in the summer of 2013. The provenance of these documents may well be questioned, but their veracity and authenticity has not been and when presented to Celtic in that summer of 2013 the documents should have provided cause to refer the matter to UEFA, who had the authority to ask for the originals under CFCB rules. Why that never happened is a bit of a mystery to this day.

Exchanges between some Celtic small shareholders resulted in a decision to formally ask Celtic to intervene, by way of a resolution to the club’s AGM in November 2013, which was an approach that could not be ignored. It is necessary for such a resolution to have the support of 5% of the shares in issue. That threshold was reached by a mixture of e mails and hard ground work in time for what became Resolution 12 to be included on the Notice of Annual General Meeting sent out to all shareholders.

Based on the leaked documents and the understanding of Tax rules and UEFA FFP at the time it was initially believed that Rangers had probably lied in their submissions at the UEFA monitoring points at 30 June and 30 September 2011. However, documents that have subsequently been lawfully obtained suggest that such deceit extended to the original application for a licence pre 31 March 2011.



Conclusions

In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary It can only be concluded that:

  1. Whilst the SFA acted in good faith when granting the licence in 2011, that Rangers FC did not in both the documentation they did provide to the SFA and then what they failed to provide, in order to obtain and retain a UEFA licence that amounted to what is known in legal terms as a False Pretence
  2. The SFA do however have questions to answer regarding:
    2.1. How they handled the matter after 10 August 2011 when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox to collect a £2.8 million tax overdue payable to HMRC.
    2.2. The role the SFA played in the SPL investigation from March 2012 into the use by Rangers of Employee Benefit Trusts with side letters that led to the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.
    2.3. How the SFA dealt with enquiries from Celtic made on the behalf of their shareholders beginning in 2014 and subsequently from April 2015 to date in response to lawyers acting on behalf of the shareholders who raised Resolution 12, because of unsatisfactory responses to enquiries made on their behalf by Celtic in 2014.


The detail of events which support these views can be read in Two Timelines.

Timeline One relates to Conclusion 1 and 2.1 to 2.2 above covering the period 2010 to 2012 including the commissioning of Lord Nimmo Smith . It can be read consecutively beginning here, or in its constituent parts viz:

Part 1: The Wee Tax Case Timeline: What Story Does It Tell?

Part 2: 5 May 2011 – 6 June 2011:- The takeover and HMRC enforcement

Part 3: 30 June 2011 – 30 September 2011:- UEFA monitoring and HMRC lose patience

Part 4: 1 October 2011 – April 2012 :- Defending the indefensible and heading for insolvency.

Part 5 – 15 March 2012 to February 2013 – The Lord Nimmo Smith Linkage

Timeline Two relates to Conclusion 2.3 above which covers exchanges between Celtic/Celtic shareholders and the SFA including a reference to UEFA in 2016 that can be read in its constituent parts viz:

Part One – December 2014 to April 2015 Shareholders Engagement with SFA via Celtic.

Part Two July 2015 – December 2016 Shareholders Independent Engagement with SFA/UEFA via a Law Firm.

Part Three June 2017 to date – After The Trial was Over.

Whilst what took place during 2011/12 was the catalyst for Resolution 12, it was not driven by any desire to harm a club that was already undergoing liquidation, but by a desire to demonstrate that the Scottish Football Association was unprofessional in conducting its governing duties and that the lack of transparency and accountability enabled them to do so then and continues to this day uncorrected.

Resolution 12 wanted to send out a message that the SFA were accountable to clubs who were in turn accountable to shareholders where the club was a Public Limited Company (PLC) and that shareholders concerns simply could not be ignored when big decisions provided one club with money at the expense of other member clubs.

Resolution 12 in its dogged pursuit was an attempt at bringing transparency and accountability into future clubs’/SFA thinking to prevent a reoccurrence in Scottish football of events since 2000. The same kind of thinking by the member clubs of the SFA that will produce the same results in future if not heeded.

That attempt is being doggedly resisted and one device consistently being used by the SFA has been to present Resolution 12 as a Celtic fan v Rangers fan issue and so deflect from their own failings which can clearly be seen under Timeline Two and which the SFA has resisted any attempts at correcting on the excuse it would be raking over coals.

If there is one group of supporters in Scotland who would have benefitted from proper governance at the SFA since 1999 it is Glasgow Rangers and if they can but just lay their prejudices aside and look at the facts in both Timelines they can only reach the same conclusion, that they were ill served by an unaccountable and opaque SFA from 2000 to 2012 and continue to be so.

If, having read the narrative you wish to contact your club’s supporter Association or Trusts to establish their position on good honest football governance a list of contacts can be found HERE .

Currently we intend to use this resource as a repository for information on Resolution 12 and related issues. If you wish to comment on the content of the blog or the direction of travel of our campaign, please direct your comments to The Scottish Football Monitor, specifically the “Accountability via Transparency” article . On SFM there is wide representation of fans of all Scottish clubs, and we do not believe that Celtic fans and shareholders have a monopoly on the desire for accountability and transparency at the SFA.​



Next: The Wee Tax Case – What story does it tell?


There's more........


TGJC

Man i hope you pasted or your fingers will be falling off.

Impressive work
 
The response (or lack thereof) from Celtic, at an institutional level, to the year in - year out, mounting evidence of blatant bias and corruption in football officialdom, at an institutional level, is bewildering to say the least. Until you look at Celtic at an institutional level. Look at the type of people who are on the board. The board care about Celtic supporters as fans just as much as they care about them as people and given that some board members are known tories that's not a lot. The worst class of political scum sit on the Celtic board and they don't care about operational matters like on field issues. They care only about the bottom line so expect them to do as much about corruption as they always have. It's not unlike the issue of sectarian hate marches going past Catholic chapels. The politicians did fuck all. The ordinary people called them out.
We will never see corruption in Scottish football challenged while tories, the epitome of corruption, sit on the board.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Back
Top